continued from page Wardlaw with ….

continued from page

Wardlaw with the right instructions for crafting the ballot. The group cited Alligood’s job description, which reads, “The supervisor would have knowledge of the Georgia election code and the rules of the State Election Board and the principles and practices of records management, and to provide examples and guidance to those that come to them to ask for support.” The group stated that Alligood had failed in her duty, stating she was taking the vote away from the people.

Wardlaw filed an appeal on the decision on Monday, July 22, to allow the Toombs County Superior Court to determine the validity of the decision, as he reaffirmed his misguidance by Alligood; however, after obtaining legal counsel a few days prior to the hearing, decided to dismiss the issue.

County Attorney Tillery filed for attorney’s fees in the case, stating that he had subpoenaed 16 individuals for the hearing, and was unable to dismiss them from their subpoena because the dismissal was filed at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, July 31. Tillery spoke to presiding Judge Howard Kaufold regarding the appeal and dismissal, stating that Wardlaw was given every reason why the petition was deficient, yet still filed for an appeal. He also shared his frustration in Wardlaw’s claims that Alligood attempted to bar him from being on the ballot, stating that such allegations were wrong and offensive. He ended his initial address by telling the Judge that dismissing a case on the eve of trial meant that Wardlaw was admitting guilt, and should be responsible for the payment of attorney’s fees in the matter.

Wardlaw’s attorney Susan Shook responded to these comments, stating that the dismissal did not admit any guilt in the case, but rather marked Wardlaw’s understanding that the details of the petition were not incompliance with state code after obtaining counsel. She emphasized that the incorrectness of these details existed because of Alligood wrongly informed Wardlaw of the requirements of the petition, which were detrimental to his campaign.

Several witnesses, including Wardlaw himself, were called to the stand in attempt to prove that the appeal had been filed, yet no change in law or guidelines had occurred – meaning, Wardlaw’s petition still did not meet the legal criteria. Discrepancies in circulator’s affidavits, petitioners’ addresses, and more were brought up, as the County attempted to prove that there was no reason that an appeal should have been filed.

After a short hour recess, the court returned for the decision in the case, in which Wardlaw was ordered to pay $7,095 ($150/ hour; 47.3 hours) in attorney’s fees to the County. The County requested an additional $229.34 for other costs, which Tillery cited as being “mainly copies,” but was denied this payment by the court.

Though he will not be listed on the ballot as an independent candidate in November, Wardlaw shared his intent to run in the race as a write-in candidate. “I had hoped I would be afforded the opportunity to have my name placed on the ballot in the upcoming sheriff’s election; however, I have been met with the upmost resistance on every hand of the legal process,” he explained. “Nonetheless, the fact remains that my campaign as a candidate for Sheriff garnered over 1,000 signatures in support of my petition for placement on the ballot. Our voices must not be silenced!”

The County also commented on the issue. “The judge ordered the other party to pay the county’s attorneys fee because their case was so frivolous. What more could we say?” County Attorney Blake Tillery remarked.